Slashdot Mirror
Internet Use Can Be Good For the Brain
ddelmonte writes "This Washington Post article examines a test conducted at UCLA.
The test had two groups, young people who used the Internet, and older people who had never been online. Both groups were asked to do Internet searches and book reading tasks while their brain activity was monitored.
'We found that in reading the book task, the visual cortex — the part of the brain that controls reading and language — was activated,' Small said.
'In doing the Internet search task, there was much greater activity, but only in the Internet-savvy group.'
He said it appears that people who are familiar with the Internet can engage in a much deeper level of brain activity.
'There is something about Internet searching where we can gauge it to a level that we find challenging,' Small said.
In the aging brain, atrophy and reduced cell activity can take a toll on cognitive function. Activities that keep the brain engaged can preserve brain health and thinking ability.
Small thinks learning to do Internet searches may be one of those activities."
I suppose young people have a perfectly fine excuse for our Internet addictions: We're just making use of our brains! I do wonder whether older people would yield increased brain activity similar to younger users when studied over a period of increased Internet usage.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
. . . when they announce that next week, we're all set!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
i found my attention span has gone to dogs since the advent of the internet and each year it gets worse
Steve Hawking ain't got nothing on me; I must be a genius!
(You have to appreciate me calling myself a genius in the same sentence that has the word "ain't", and a double negative.)
Maybe the non-internet savvy people know that in order to get the most out of the internet, you can't treat it like a book? That seems like an obvious conclusion to me. If you treat an internet search like a puzzle to be solved (which anyone who searches the internet regularly does), then you aren't just reading what's on the page. That's just one of the obvious alternate conclusions one could jump to. But then, that was also just based on the summary, which is almost never an accurate representation of the actual article or study.
You mean that young brains, when confronted with a familiar, engaging audio-visual medium stimulated more of the brain than when they tested elderly subjects who had essentially no concept of the depth of information that was available in that medium.
I am shocked with this discovery. Shocked, I tell you. We should spend much more on this research - maybe with animals - to determine the extent of this effect. Do you suppose these guys produce a newsletter?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Does the research also mention something about playing tower defense flash games on the internet?
Seriously though. Of course someone who is younger and has used the internet before is going to be more interested at sitting in front of a computer, therefore increased brain stimulation. Do the same thing with a old guy that likes to play chess and a young guy that only likes to play flash based dress up doll games and see if the opposite doesn't happen.
"I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
I think it's because Internet users needed to use more of their brains, having less to go around. But then I use the Internet too, so what do I know?
Reduce, reuse, cycle
"I'm exercising my visual cortex!" *fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap*
So by my estimation it will make you n times smarter than the Library of Congress ever could.
There are so many missing controls and unaccounted variables in this study that it makes my brain hurt.
Older people by nature may not engage in as deep level of thought in any activity.
Also, the younger people are probably problem solving by attempting to construct the most accurate search terms that returns the best results for what they want.
This is the same as learning to problem solve in any activity - including those outside of the internet.
When you're doing an internet search you have to actually give input. You have give google something to search for.
When you're reading a book or a given article you don't have to think about where to find the information, it will (or won't) be contained in the material directly in front of you. There's nothing to think about as far as looking information up. Just read whats there.
Also I wonder if some of the difference in brain activity due to age is part of the actual typing. If you sit someone down who can type 60 words a minute in front of google, they are going to used a much different and well used part of their brain to type than someone who has to stare at the keyboard and hunt and peck.
Personally I kind of enjoy that I can type fairly quickly, I even like the feel of utilizing the skill. I believe most of the internet savvy generation can type pretty well, but I think a fair amount of our parents generation are still at hunt and peck.
Eschew Obfuscation
Can I borrow your paragraph for a minute?
You mean that trained older auto-tech brains, when confronted with an familiar, engaging mechanical car engine stimulated more of the brain than when they tested young subjects who had essentially no concept of the depth of information that was available in that vehicle.
You mean that trained older doctor brains, when confronted with an familiar, engaging biochemical patient stimulated more of the brain than when they tested young subjects who had essentially no concept of the depth of information that was available in a person's anatomy.
I am shocked with this discovery. Shocked, I tell you. We should spend much more on this research - maybe with animals - to determine the extent of this effect. Do you suppose these guys produce a newsletter?
Sounds like a flawed study to me.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If the internet is good for your brain why do I feel stupider after reading more than 3 YouTube comments?
I think you are using the Internet wrong. It is a tool for research, discovery, and much more. It should stimulate your desire to learn and exercise your ability to sort through the noise to find useful information. Crafting an Internet search on Google, for example, is far more than knowing a few terms. And that will continue to become more important as the noise outpaces the signal.
Unless you are using it as a surrogate for a real life, in which case it probably will dim your bulb. OTOH, perhaps that just means we need a different IQ test.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
So basicaly the brain adapts itself to what it is doing. If you use it, no matter how trivial will 'train' the brain. Who would have thought?
Now what you need to do is if the good that is being done is better then doing it in an alternative way. e.g. instead of searching for something online, getting the knowledge on how to do research with books or in any other way.
Or perhaps even walking to the library and looking thing up there gives you better blood circulation that is more important then what surfing does.
I am sure that then it doesn't look that good anymore.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Argh, I've done it again, I'm posting on Slashdot. Anyone else able to make it past 11am without pointing their browser somewhere unrelated to work?
Anything is better then watching Lame TV shows.......
Seems like they're mixing up too many variables in this pot.
Kind of surprising actually.
I believe the convention has it that for a particular task, expert brains have less activity than novice brains.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003270
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1576979
The summery above says that the internet savvy test subjects were younger than those who have never used it before, however, the article linked clearly mentions that all subjects were aged 55-76, and that "the groups were similar in age, gender and education."
Also, the test only included 24 subjects, which is not very much to base a theory on. A larger study showing similar results would be more reliable.
That is a fascinating article with a superb ending. Ironically, though, I have other things to do this morning so I skipped to the end after about 7 paragraphs :P
Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
"We found that in reading the book task, the visual cortex -- the part of the brain that controls reading and language -- was activated," Small said."
The visual cortex, which is the occipital cortex, at the back of the head, processes vision from the very basic perception through combining perceptual elements into a whole visual picture. It puts together the images of the letters into words and words into phrases (visual "chunks" per George Miller). It does not "read".
Scanning the phrases/chunks requires the superior frontal lobes (Brodmann area 8), which control eye movement. The scanned material is fed to Wernicke's area (Brodmann 22, the posterior section of the superior temporal gyrus, encircling the auditory cortex, on the Sylvian fissure), drawing on the parietal association cortices which in turn are receiving the visual material from the occipital primary and secondary visual systems. making sense of it requires use of Broca's area (Brodmann 44 and 45; the opercular and triangular sections of the inferior frontal gyrus of the frontal lobe), which produces spoken words by controlling the necesssary motor functions, and interestingly controls comprehension in reading. This is why reading causes subvocalization (movement of speech creating anatomy despite reading silently).
TFA saw "activity" in the visual area. If they didn't see it in all the above, they weren't seeing reading. This is what happens when people who don't fully comprehend either the target or the technology point the technology at the target. Small is a geriatric psychologist. He's not a neural anatomy and physiology specialist. Most importantly, just as with the vast majority of people reporting fMRI results, he doesn't grasp what he's measuring.
MRI measures relative levels of oxyhemoglobin and carboxyhemoglobin. fMRI measures it during different tasks (ie. reading vs. not reading). It is fairly well supported that the more difference between them, the more oxygen is being used and so the more the brain is working in that area. This is not necessarily the case, as more oxygenation without subsequent metabolism as well as the inverse, can cause identical results. In any case, the implied metabolism probably represents neurons working. 85% of the brain is excitatory and operates constantly, although changing some with demand. 15% of the brain is inhibitory, and carves out the important stuff from the vast array of what's taken in. fMRI is only measuring implied neural metabolism. It cannot possibly differentiate between excitatory and inhibitory activity, and in fact measures both without being able to tell them apart.
He saw that cells in the visual cortex were using more blood looking at stuff in people who look at stuff more. That's all he can say. Everything else is pure conjecture. And if he didn't see the other areas activating at the same time, he damn sure can't say he was seeing reading happening.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
It is very apparent to me, as it likely is to most of you, that the advent of the Internet is certainly one of the greatest technological advances of our lifetimes. However, when you get more information than you can process, and when your interests get so varied that you can't possibly absorb all of it, I would think that your mind, your work, or your lifestyle would actually suffer.
Let me give you an example. My daily read list keeps expanding: 2 local newspapers, CNN.com, wired.com, slashdot.com, fredmiranda.com, pcmag.com, and even 4chan.com/b/ from time to time. That list doesn't account for the things that pop up during the day. How on earth can a person absorb all that, much less make time to read them all?
So what about young people whose interests are more varied? You pile porn and youtube on top of what they should be doing in a day's time (like attending classes or studying) and what then? How can unlimited access to all information be a good thing for everyone?
Of course, my opinions are just that and are not based in fact at all, other than my own experiences.
His team studied 24 normal volunteers between the ages of 55 and 76. Half were experienced at searching the Internet and the other half had no Web experience. Otherwise, the groups were similar in age, gender and education.
So what's this in the summary:
The test had two groups, young people who used the Internet, and older people who had never been online.
Also since when does studying only 24 people (12 variable and 12 control), constitute 'research'. It looks like they might be onto something worth researching, but haven't IMHO done enough research yet to be releasing findings.